Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Grim Portent]

I think in the UK a lot of fines go to the treasury, essentially the central government budget that everything gets paid for with. They don't usually get marked for budgeting specific things but exceptions exist for corporate fines, I think some of those go to the regulatory agency.

In general I'd say it'd make more sense for funds confiscated by police to go to the federal or state government than to the police department.

[Reelya]

It's definitely better than the example of American cops shaking down passing motorists for spare cash, then spending it on keg parties back at base. The outrage is of course because America isn't supposed to be the type of place where such things happen.

[SalmonGod]

So from what you're saying, the difference between civil forfeiture and a speeding ticket is that if I get a speeding ticket I can go to court to dispute it?

Sort of, but not quite. With traffic tickets, there are very firm limits on what you can be ticketed for, disputing it is fairly easy if you place a reasonable burden of proof on the police (requiring video evidence of the violation would handle anything but speeding, and even speeding could be evaluated by how the rest of traffic is moving), and the only thing that happens if the cops aggressively enforce the laws to raise more revenue (unless they're making up violations or unevenly enforcing) is that the roads get safer. In other words - Mission Accomplished.

Yeah, there's no disputing that shit here.  Improper usage of radar guns is rampant, but near impossible to contest in court, as far as I'm aware.  I've been hit with an outrageous, blatantly false speed reading on one occasion.  I'm talking like 25 mph over my actual speed.

[Greiger]

Just trying to keep up here and make sure I'm understanding correctly.  I thought civil forfeiture was the whole "We caught you for a busted taillight and see $200 worth of cash in your passenger seat.  You claim you just sold your old car for scrap, but there is no reason any law abiding citizen would be carrying that much cash, so we're seizing it even though we are not going to charge you for a crime because  we think you are trying to use that money to buy drugs but can't prove it."

Is the money police get from fines (legit or not) also civil forfeiture or is that something else?

[Frumple]

That's the jist of civil forfeiture in particular, yeah. Pretty sure there's a bit more to it, but also pretty sure that's the scenario that's been most publicized.

Fines et al are something generally different, if somewhat related, and even if also abused usually less literally highway robbery.

[wierd]

civil forfeiture also covers:

"BOB! WHAT THE FUCK DUDE, I told you to house sit my house while I took that 2 week cruise and now the cops have seized my house, sold it on the market, and I am fucking homeless, because you are a douchebag who used my house as a methlab while I was gone!!"

"Tina, your little stunt with the bag of weed and your punk friends just caused me to lose my car."

and, as the originally quoted article cites---

"Sir, empty your pockets. For the crime of resisting arrest (by running from us when we jumped out at you), we are confiscating everything on your person."

Civil forfeiture is an action against the property itself, not against any individual person, if that property is presumed to have been involved in an illegal activity (anyone's activity.)  This is why all of these batshit absurd situations call *ALL* result from civil forfeiture laws. It is also why you cannot contest, dispute, or demand reimbursement for the seizure. (You are not the property, and thus cannot offer a defense. The property, being inanimate, likewise cannot offer a defense.)

[Lord Shonus]

So from what you're saying, the difference between civil forfeiture and a speeding ticket is that if I get a speeding ticket I can go to court to dispute it?

Sort of, but not quite. With traffic tickets, there are very firm limits on what you can be ticketed for, disputing it is fairly easy if you place a reasonable burden of proof on the police (requiring video evidence of the violation would handle anything but speeding, and even speeding could be evaluated by how the rest of traffic is moving), and the only thing that happens if the cops aggressively enforce the laws to raise more revenue (unless they're making up violations or unevenly enforcing) is that the roads get safer. In other words - Mission Accomplished.

Yeah, there's no disputing that shit here.  Improper usage of radar guns is rampant, but near impossible to contest in court, as far as I'm aware.  I've been hit with an outrageous, blatantly false speed reading on one occasion.  I'm talking like 25 mph over my actual speed.

I did say that a system of checks is necessary. I know people that have beaten speeding tickets of that sort with dashcam footage, but those aren't ubiquitous.

[wierd]

They are becoming more and more prevalent though, as police abuse gets more prominent. (Amusingly, exactly the same kinds of reasons they became essential in Russia.)

I love how nobody ever thought "Hey, telling the Police is its OK to take and keep stuff from a crime scene is probably not a good message..." when they drafted these forfeiture laws, instead focusing on "Damn that Al Capone and his labyrinthine schemeing! We KNOW he is dirty as all get out, but we just cant prove it! We need a way to punish people like him anyway!"


Also, just an OT aside.... I keep reading that as "Ameripol: Trump as Davros"  and wondering when we are going to all become daleks.

Oh look, somebody has already beaten me to the punch...

Spoiler: Tee hee hee (click to show/hide)

[hops]

Trump needs to stop giving Ser Seaworth a hard time.

[wierd]

In slightly more pleasing news, at least one senator "Gets it", and gives the FBI head a much needed tongue lashing.

https://gizmodo.com/senator-demands-fbi-director-explain-his-encryption-bac-1822400040

[smjjames]

Such is the dilemma with police and the feds wanting access to encrypted stuff and be able to break it (sometimes with good reason, like a terrorists cellphone for example) while at the same time not creating a massive vulnerability for hackers and other malicious operators.

[Silverthrone]

Oprah will not be appearing in the presidential election.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42817547

And thank the Lord for that.

Well, that might the wrong impression. I rather like Oprah. But I also rather like that she will not be running for the presidency, for she knows that it is not something she could do very well. I like that degree of self-knowledge. She spares us another celebrity candidacy, and, to be quite frank, herself of an awful lot of work, trouble, and uncivility for questionable gain. Of course, 2020 will no doubt be a !!fun!! affair nonetheless...

[Zangi]

It's definitely better than the example of American cops shaking down passing motorists for spare cash, then spending it on keg parties back at base. The outrage is of course because America isn't supposed to be the type of place where such things happen.

It is probably ok to use it to bolster the budget for military grade equipment though. 
Off the book raises/hush money is also good as long as you don't get caught.

[misko27]

Oprah will not be appearing in the presidential election.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42817547

And thank the Lord for that.

She said she didn't want to be President though.

This has been going on for centuries. William T. Sherman had to say "If nominated I would not run, if elected I would not serve." in order to get people off his back, and it's become a part of political lingo to demand a Sherman Pledge.

[martinuzz]

https://www.volkskrant.nl/media/dutch-agencies-provide-crucial-intel-about-russia-s-interference-in-us-elections~a4561913/

If Trump gets impeached don't forget to thank us